Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity

被引:100
作者
Ferson, S
Joslyn, CA
Helton, JC
Oberkampf, WL
Sentz, K
机构
[1] App Biomath, Setauket, NY 11733 USA
[2] Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA
[3] Arizona State Univ, Dept Math & Stat, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[4] Sandia Natl Labs, Albuquerque, NM 87185 USA
关键词
epistemic uncertainty; challenge problems; aleatory uncertainty; aggregation; repeated parameters; interval uncertainty; independence in imprecise; probability models;
D O I
10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.023
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
The 'Epistemic Uncertainty Workshop' sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on 6-7 August 2002. The workshop was organized around a set of Challenge Problems involving both epistemic and aleatory uncertainty that the workshop participants were invited to solve and discuss. This concluding article in a special issue of Reliability Engineering and System Safety based on the workshop discusses the intent of the Challenge Problems, summarizes some discussions from the workshop, and provides a technical comparison among the papers in this special issue. The Challenge Problems were computationally simple models that were intended as vehicles for the illustration and comparison of conceptual and numerical techniques for use in analyses that involve: (i) epistemic uncertainty, (ii) aggregation of multiple characterizations of epistemic uncertainty, (iii) combination of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, and (iv) models with repeated parameters. There was considerable diversity of opinion at the workshop about both methods and fundamental issues, and yet substantial consensus about what the answers to the problems were, and even about how each of the four issues should be addressed. Among the technical approaches advanced were probability theory, Dempster-Shafer evidence theory, random sets, sets of probability measures, imprecise coherent probabilities, coherent lower previsions, probability boxes, possibility theory, fuzzy sets, joint distribution tableaux, polynomial chaos expansions, and info-gap models. Although some participants maintained that a purely probabilistic approach is fully capable of accounting for all forms of uncertainty, most agreed that the treatment of epistemic uncertainty introduces important considerations and that the issues underlying the Challenge Problems are legitimate and significant. Topics identified as meriting additional research include elicitation of uncertainty representations, aggregation of multiple uncertainty representations, dependence and independence, model uncertainty, solution of black-box problems, efficient sampling strategies for computation, and communication of analysis results. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 369
页数:15
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1981, RISK ANAL, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1981.TB01415.X
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1985, NUREGCR3904 SAND NAT
[3]   THE CONCEPT OF PROBABILITY IN SAFETY ASSESSMENTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS [J].
APOSTOLAKIS, G .
SCIENCE, 1990, 250 (4986) :1359-1364
[4]  
Cooke R., 1991, EXPERTS UNCERTAINTY
[5]  
Couso I, 2000, RISK DECISION POLICY, V5, P165, DOI DOI 10.1017/S1357530900000156
[6]  
COZMAN FG, 2001, P 2 INT S IMPR PROB, P112
[7]  
de Cooman G., 1999, 1 INT S IMPRECISE PR, P121
[8]   Automated quality assurance checks on model structure in ecological risk assessments [J].
Ferson, S .
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 1996, 2 (03) :558-569
[9]  
FERSON S, 2002, SAND20024015
[10]  
Fetz T., 2001, ISIPTA 01 P 2 INT S, P171